Article from:

Creation 32(4):18–20
September 2010

Browse this issue

Subscribe to Creation magazine

Recommended Resources

Does God exist?

by Drs Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati

Is there objective evidence that God exists? What are the consequences of atheism? Where did God come from? Can we know God personally?

The God Delusion Debate

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox

In this debate, Christian apologist / theologian Dr John Lennox calmly and logically shows that Professor Richard Dawkins’ atheism is ill-founded.

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution

by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims made in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution.

Who created God?

It’s an illogical question

by Don Batten

Dominos image ©StockPhoto.com/LuisPortugal

If a creator God needs to have been made by a creator, that creator would also need a creator who needs a creator … like an infinite chain of toppling dominos, which is an impossibility.

This question is a major objection that atheists put forward to justify their disbelief. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), a famous British philosopher, in his influential little essay, Why I am not a Christian, put this forward as his first objection.¹ Today’s atheists repeat the objection, including Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Australia’s own Philip Adams at the 2010 Global Atheists’ Congress in Melbourne Australia, who said,

“The great argument for God was that there had to be a Creation, a beginning. … But my objection was simple. If God was the beginning who began God?”²

This principle of causation is so fundamental that if I said that the chair you are sitting on, which must have had a beginning, just popped into existence without any cause, you might justifiably think I need a psychiatric assessment!

The universe had a beginning; almost no one disputes that, because the laws of thermodynamics demand it: the universe is running down and it cannot have been running down forever, or it would have already run down. No stars would be still churning out energy and we would not be here.

Some have proposed one universe giving birth to another, but again, there cannot be an infinite series of such births and deaths, as each cycle must have less energy available than the last and if this had been happening for eternity, the death of everything would have already happened.

There must have been a beginning.

One of the most established principles of logic / science / reality is the principle of causality: something that has a beginning has a sufficient cause. The principle is not, ‘Everything has a cause’; Bertrand Russell misstated it. No, the principle is, ‘Everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause’. Just a moment’s thought confirms this—something which had no beginning has no need of a cause. Furthermore, a cause has to be sufficient, or adequate. ‘You were found in a cabbage patch’ is not a sufficient explanation for your existence.

Today’s atheists, who like to use words like ‘rational’, ‘reasonable’ and ‘scientific’ in describing their beliefs, believe that the greatest beginning of all—that of the universe—had no cause whatsoever! Some admit it is a problem, but they claim that saying ‘God did it’ explains nothing because you then have to explain where God came from. But is this a valid objection?

What must the cause of the universe have been like?

The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit.

Furthermore, the cause of the universe had to be incredibly powerful; the sheer size and energy seen in the universe together speak of that power; there had to be a sufficient cause.

That sounds like the God of the Bible to me. The Bible reveals the Creator of the universe as:

eternal

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2)

all-powerful

Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might, and in your hand it is to make great and to give strength to all. (1 Chronicles 29:11–12)

spirit (non-material)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)

Note that the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Here God created time itself. Only One who is outside of time, that is, timeless, or eternal, could do this.

Now to ask where someone who is eternal, someone who had no beginning, came from (‘Who created God?’) is like asking, ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’ It is an irrational question.

The Bible matches reality, which is not surprising when we consider that it claims to be from the Creator Himself.

Two ‘great beginnings’—without any cause!

Those who reject the Creator not only have to believe that matter came into being without any cause; they also have to believe that life itself popped into existence without an adequate cause.

Even the simplest single-celled life is stupendously complex. A humble bacterium is full of incredibly sophisticated nano-machines that it needs to live.³ A cell needs a minimum of over 400 different proteins to make the machines that are absolutely essential for life.⁴ How could these protein-based machines make themselves, even if all the right ingredients (20 different amino acids, but many of each) could make themselves? The amino acids, often thousands of them, have to be joined together in the correct order for each protein to function.

Just think about one essential machine that copies the DNA instructions for making each protein.⁵ Then let’s take just one protein component of that machine, less than 10% of the total. This protein is 329 amino acids in length. What would be the chance of getting this one protein by chance, assuming that the correct, and only the correct, amino acid ingredients were present? Calculate it this way: 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 … 329 times!⁶ This is a probability of 1 in 10⁴²⁸ … a number with 428 zeros after the 1! Even if every atom in the universe (10⁸⁰—a number with 80 zeros) represented an experiment for every molecular vibration possible (10¹² per second) for the supposed evolutionary age of the universe (14 billion years=10¹⁸ seconds), this would allow ‘only’ 10¹¹⁰ experiments—a long, long way short of the number needed to have a ghost of a chance of getting just this one protein to form,⁷ let alone the over 400 others needed.

We marvel at the scientists who are discovering the nano-technology in living things—and it is an astonishing enterprise. But what of the One who invented these things? How much more intelligent is He?

It’s no wonder that Richard Dawkins admits that scientists might never work out how life could arise by natural processes. Nevertheless, he rejects the creation explanation for the fallacious reason above.

Now what sort of cause is sufficient to explain the origin of life? The cause must be incredibly intelligent—far beyond our intelligence. We marvel at the scientists who are discovering the nano-technology in living things—and it is an astonishing enterprise. But what of the One who invented these things? How much more intelligent is He? This reminds me of another characteristic of the God whom the Bible reveals: He is omniscient (all knowing). See Psalm 139:2–6; Isaiah 40:13–14.

We know sufficient about the Creator from His creation to be “without excuse”. Romans 1:18–22 says,

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools … ”

And here the Bible explains why otherwise intelligent people choose to believe impossible things—that firstly the universe, then life, just popped into existence without any adequate cause. They choose to illogically accept that their two ‘great beginnings’ had no sufficient cause, rather than acknowledge and honour their Creator.

Readers’ comments

Carel R., New Zealand

Thank you for your lucid exposition of this issue; it is a brilliant response to a question that atheists so often throw down as their ultimate trump card.

Winfred G., Philippines

“There’s probably no God. Stop worrying and enjoy life”, are lines largely printed on some buses in Europe. These sinners are somewhat worried, subconsciously, believed in a God but their claim THERE IS NO GOD is only a defense mechanism for them to have an excuse for their wickedness.

Kevin D., United States

Well it took a couple of reads but I finally got this revelation to break through my thick skull. Thank you for you effort. Praise God!

David D., United Kingdom

First of all, great article. Sinners are no doubt worried. Evolution is the perfect ‘get out of jail’ card for sinners. When faced with the truth of creation they would rather turn away from the ‘No God’ to ‘Aliens created us’ which is also another excuse continue to live out an immoral life with no consequences.

If they started to believe in Creation, they must believe in the God of the bible. Atheists and sinners are not ready to give up there immoral lifestyle, so they look for another belief that casually fits in to there life.

Jeff M., New Zealand

The reason why creation is such an important issue: there are only two choices aren’t there: evolution and a life where we answer only our selves, or creation and an all-powerful God who WILL hold us accountable ... awesome verse, Romans 1:18 ... the ostrich syndrome, of head in the sand, refusing to believe what their eyes see.

It’s not science, it’s a choice, a belief system that allows man to believe he only has to answer to himself.

Keep up the good work.

Dave G., Dominica

Great article; presents the rock bottom of the issue from a Creationist stand point. Though, whenever I hear this question asked by non-believers, I’m always astonished at how they are overlooking the exact same question for THEIR first bit of ‘matter’; how was THAT created?

Mihaela O., Romania

Very good article. These things that I read on your site really help me.

Timothy R., USA

This article excellently demonstrates the basic weakness of the atheists’ argument. Everyone who is wrestling with the questions of whether a creator exists or not, and if the creator does exist then is the Bible the word of the creator needs to think through all of the arguments of the atheists to the end. When the end is reached the atheists’ position is a desire to reject the overwhelming evidence that God has given us, a desire to grasp for something else, and sadly a desire to hold on to the sinful ways of this world. Don’t believe the lies of atheists. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. The God of all creation sent His Son to die for our sins so that we may be with God. Accept the free gift of God … Jesus Christ.

Orest M., USA

What you must realize is that just because something provides AN explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is the CORRECT explanation. Although an all powerful God does fit the bill as creator of the universe, so does a powerful time-traveling wizard. Should I then conclude that the Universe was created by a wizard? I think not.

Author responds:

The principle of logic stated in the article is “something that has a beginning has a sufficient cause”. Unless you define your “powerful time-traveling wizard” (your sanitized name for Dawkins’ flying spaghetti monster?) as having the same attributes as the God of the Bible (eternal, omnipotent, spiritual, omniscient, as in the article), then your hypothetical cause is inadequate. If your “wizard” has these same attributes, then he is God; you have just used a different name, albeit a blasphemous one.

If your hypothetical wizard is a material entity, then you have not solved the problem of a sufficient cause because he would have to have a beginning also. What caused the wizard?

Furthermore, there is a consistent witness from the Bible and history to the existence of the God of the Bible (such as the Resurrection and the survival of the early church, and fulfilled prophecy), which reinforces the testimony of what we see around us. However, the wizard is just your mental construct, which not even you believe in.

Any way you look at it, you are ‘snookered’ and the truth of Romans 1, cited near the end of the article, rings true. Of course no one can prove to you that the Creator-God of the Bible exists if you resolutely choose not to believe. However, if you are open to the possibility of God’s existence, then God has promised, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13).

Cody M., USA

Well stated. There are way too many issues chemically and physically for an atheist to stand firm in his or her beliefs. Sure they may have their perceived "evidence" for evolution, but ask any evolutionist how only a few atoms out of 118 discovered possible form the necessary molecules to form RNA? Why just organic molecules? How did RNA begin to replicate? How did it become aware enough to build a shell out of fats, which are different in structures to proteins? When did DNA come in, and how did ribose gain the extra alcohol to become deoxyribose? When did uracil become thymine? They can try to build it after the life exists, but nobody can sufficiently explain how the non-sentient molecules made sentient organisms.

Anthony L., USA

Loved the author’s rebuttal to the time-traveling wizard response. I have often tried to articulate that to atheists who for some reason are giddy over the FSM construct. It is so childish a rebuke that I keep thinking they’re trying to start a fight on the playground rather than have a serious discussion. How do they not see that under no situation do we get here without something supernatural happening—that is, something that doesn’t and can’t happen anymore? What caused the atom or whatever matter to move that set the chain reaction that caused the big bang? No doubt they’d rather believe a time-traveling wizard did it rather than a righteous God. It’s as if Dawkins and this fellow have never opened the Bible and actually read about the God they’re so hungry to mock. They seem to have taken Hollywood’s view of what they think Bible-believing Christians think about God over what the Bible actually reveals about Him. I’m so sick of the “Jesus is magic” label. If they want to label creative power as magic, then by all means, let it ride … but they are children, through and through, in adult bodies that spit on the only rational belief system on the planet. So thank you for taking the time to answer these absurd challenges. It’s too bad you have to waste so much time trying to be reasonable rather than marveling and studying God’s creative power … but all the same, God is using you to touch hearts all over the planet.

Brian W., USA

Why does the Wizard have to travel through time? Did he have to go back to the beginning of the universe and start the process himself? Doesn’t that mean he created himself? Anyone who watches Star Trek, knows this is impossible. I’m amazed at the lengths atheists will go through to deny the obvious fact that God created us.

Kenneth K., Canada

Someone once said that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

We need to pray before engaging atheists because they may hear the logic with their ears but not with their heart. They don't want to accept it because they love their sin more than the light.

The Spirit of the un-caused God is the one who breaks the barriers, as He did with me!

George D., Australia

I have always thought that Evolution is the tale that Lucifer created so he can gather more souls to HIS flock to make himself look more important.

It is fun though to listen to people spout this diatribe.

Thanks for the read.

Adrian C., United Kingdom, 8 February 2012

The fact that the scientific beginning of the world is currently an enigma, does not mean that it's cause was supernatural.

Although it cannot be proven that it wasn't, there is no evidence to suggest that it was. What can be asserted without evidence, can be equally dismissed without evidence.

Russel's problem comes mainly from the fundamental concept of God, not a misunderstanding of the role he would take: Russel questions how it can be possible that he has no beginning. Something which has no explainable beginning cannot be answered by stating it simply has no beginning (unless strong scientific evidence suggests otherwise).

I'm not sure whether he attempts to use this to disprove God, however it certainly shows the flaw in the beginning of the universe under any circumstance.

Dr Batten responds:

Russell did indeed offer this as his first excuse for not being a Christian. He said, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.” I showed how this was a baseless, false assertion, but then Russell might be due some latitude here because at the time the ‘experts’ were entertaining the idea of an eternal universe (hence there was a lot of opposition to the big bang, even up to the 1950s). Opposition continues today for the same reason. That the universe had a beginning rests on one of the bedrocks of physics, proven over and over, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so my argument is based on what we do know, not what we don’t know. A beginning without a cause would contradict every experiment ever done. A sufficient cause is demanded by the evidence and that cause cannot be material, because it could then not exist eternally. It had to be non-material, or spirit, and very powerful—attributes of God. But it is all set out in the article.

Jason D., United States, 22 March 2012

The responses that are against this article seem to miss something very important: having a beginning is only relevant when you are within a constructed framework with time as one of the build materials. Outside of the concept of time, there is also no concept of something beginning or even ending; in fact, the word "eternal" has no meaning as it suggests a linear progression into infinity, which is also another concept that does not exist within our temporal framework. Man fumbles in dark trying to explain something completely beyond their ken and then curses and rejects it because they cannot understand it, but it does not change what it is. How is it that so many intelligent people fall into this trap?

If one says that God must have a beginning, then they trap Him within His own creation and He is clearly outside of it. At times, I think that the universe must be like a glass snowglobe to Him.